Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:16:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:16:47 -0500 Received: from [81.2.122.30] ([81.2.122.30]:17669 "EHLO darkstar.example.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:16:45 -0500 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200212191335.gBJDZRDL000704@darkstar.example.net> Subject: Dedicated kernel bug database To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:35:27 +0000 (GMT) Cc: davej@codemonkey.org.uk, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, lm@bitmover.com, lm@work.bitmover.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, akpm@digeo.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1824 Lines: 44 Following on from yesterday's discussion about there not being much interaction between the kernel Bugzilla and the developers, I began wondering whether Bugzilla might be a bit too generic to be suited to kernel development, and that maybe a system written from the ground up for reporting kernel bugs would be better? I.E. I am prepared to write it myself, if people think it's worthwhile. For example, we get a lot of posts on LKML like this: "Hi, foobar doesn't work in 2.4.19" Now, does that mean: * The bug first appeared in 2.4.19, and is still in 2.4.20 * The bug reporter hasn't tested 2.4.20 * The bug reporter can't test 2.4.20 because something else is broken * The bug actually first appeared in 2.4.10, but it didn't irritate them enough to complain until now. A bug database designed from scratch could allow such information to be indexed in a way that could be processed and searched usefully. A list of tick-boxes for worked/didn't work/didn't test/couldn't test for several kernel versions could be presented. Also, we could have a non-web interface, (telnet or gopher to the bug DB, or control it by E-Mail). It could warn the user if they attach an un-decoded oops that their bug report isn't as useful as it could be, and if they mention a distribution kernel version, that it's not a tree that the developers will necessarily be familiar with. I'm not criticising the fact that we've got Bugzilla up and running, but just pointing out that we could do better, (and I'm prepared to put in the time and effort). I just need ideas, really. John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/